Do your DOT's accept found monuments along Federal & State Highways? Or do they reject them and create a "best-fit" line through them and then document how far off the best-fit line each monument falls.
Are you, as a private surveyor, allowed to do this, or do the monuments control the line location, with a bearing change at each monument?
I have seen DOTs do both. Rejecting the monuments might make sence if they were set long after the aquisition, but I have never seen any legal justification for it otherwise. I would never do it. Some DOTs seem to only monument the centerline now to avoid this problem.
Jim in AZ, post: 414466, member: 249 wrote: Do your DOT's accept found monuments along Federal & State Highways? Or do they reject them and create a "best-fit" line through them and then document how far off the best-fit line each monument falls.
Are you, as a private surveyor, allowed to do this, or do the monuments control the line location, with a bearing change at each monument?
The second part of your question is the more relevant one as far as I'm concerned. The usual State highway right-of-way in Texas is a strip of land purchased in fee simple and described in relation to a centerline that was surveyed in the course of the acquisition. The older conveyances make no reference to markers of any sort, only to the centerline "as staked out" or some similar phrase to indicate that a survey had been made prior to the transaction.
Lines of hubs were set along the boundaries of the newly acquired strip and either new fences were built to the lines or the existing fences were moved to the new lines. In the course of the actual construction, right-of-way markers were installed as an item of work under the construction contract. Typically, the State highway department marked lines for the installation of the markers, but the level of care that was put into that exercise varied quite a bit.
So, here we are sixty years later. The concrete right-of-way markers have been through the wars. They are either (a) just a rusty tangle of rebar sticking out of the ground with a few shards of broken concrete attached, (b) leaning at about a 45å¡ angle off plumb, (c) completely gone, or (d) in place in as perfect shape as a person might reasonably expect the roughly 4-inch square top a blank surface of concrete.
Along the right-of-way there may be lots of survey markers placed with different levels of care in the course of surveys made over sixty years.
The grant to the State controls the boundary, so the task is to locate the centerline described in the original conveyance. Typically, the concrete right-of-way markers placed in the course of construction are the most compelling evidence of the location of the centerline, but not always. Some of the concrete right-of-way markers may be wildly out of position, i.e. in locations that are completely incompatible with any reasonable construction of the language of the original conveyance by which the State acquired the land in the highway right-of-way. It will also happen that private surveyors have perpetuated the locations of the centerlines as staked at the time of the original acquisition.
My answer is that I usually hold the monument. Now with that being said, It is getting harder and harder to find said DOT monuments. Some I don't think were ever set and some are disappearing, especially in urban areas. the highways and some other roads are actually held in fee by the state, so its treated like most other boundary lines.
I never liked the argument that the monuments don't hold because contracters set them inaccurately. DOT is still responsible for them. Try telling the guy who built his house off of them that the DOT ROW markers don't actually mark the ROW and the ROW is an invisible line that is only tied to something he can actually see one mile away from his property.
aliquot, post: 414494, member: 2486 wrote: I never liked the argument that the monuments don't hold because contracters set them inaccurately. DOT is still responsible for them. Try telling the guy who built his house off of them that the DOT ROW markers don't actually mark the ROW and the ROW is an invisible line that is only tied to something he can actually see one mile away from his property.
I agree. They were set to mark the "right of way", they have been treated for many years as marking the right of way, most usually have "right of way" stamped on them., In most cases there are maps/plans filed with the DOT that call them out as marking the right of way.
Legally, how do these monuments rate getting ignored over mere measurements? If they mean absolutely nothing to no one, why were they even set, just to create confusion so the DOT's can force landowners to move their improvements every time a surveyor "recreates" where the line was supposed to have placed?
Brian Allen, post: 414508, member: 1333 wrote: I agree. They were set to mark the "right of way", they have been treated for many years as marking the right of way, most usually have "right of way" stamped on them., In most cases there are maps/plans filed with the DOT that call them out as marking the right of way.
Legally, how do these monuments rate getting ignored over mere measurements? If they mean absolutely nothing to no one, why were they even set, just to create confusion so the DOT's can force landowners to move their improvements every time a surveyor "recreates" where the line was supposed to have placed?
Exactly how I see it, albeit, I like to simplify things a bit.
As surveyors we tend to have the notion that those positions placed in the ground are there to make our replacements easier and agreeable with past efforts, realistically, they were placed for the layman to rely on.
As R/W markers I say accept them after you're comfortable they fit the pattern of others that are up and down station, "throwing out" the ones that don't fit. One thing about a best fit solution is the results will change every time you add another found monument. Where do you stop?
BajaOR, post: 414513, member: 9139 wrote: As R/W markers I say accept them after you're comfortable they fit the pattern of others that are up and down station, "throwing out" the ones that don't fit. One thing about a best fit solution is the results will change every time you add another found monument. Where do you stop?
Yep. I wonder why the general rule is and has always been, monuments set to mark boundaries, and having been recognized as marking boundaries (since biblical times) has controlled over course and distance. The intent is what was done and accepted on the ground, not on the "plan".
I would agree that an undisturbed dot markers mark the r/w (especially a 6"x6"x12" above ground concrete, inscribed with R/W). Then I moved to Oregon and one of the first comments I remember from an old time Surveyor (and the general survey community) was that " we seldom accept the r/w monuments because they were set by contractors and not very accurately". Now I'm so confused. Local standard practice or what my good sense tells me??? It is so prevalent in Oregon that I just took a class put on by Bonneville Power Company that taught to use the centerline hubs/markers then the towers to establish the centerline to which then controls the sidelines and last evidence is the false calls to plss corners. I've always wondered if they taught that class because so many surveyors were taught the opposite when working on the State Hwys and not to rely on the dot r/w markers and start at the plss corner and put the cl alignment back in from the false calls. My 2 cents, Jp
P.s. To the punctuation and spelling nazis, kiss off.:)
Well, it certainly IS much easier and cheaper to hold those big 'ol concrete markers, standing up so tall and proud, wherever they may be, than to actually put in the time and effort to reproduce the original baseline, or centerline, from which the boundaries of the appropriation are described.
If you fellers say that's the right and proper way to survey - I'm in!
There is the "king gets his" theory. If the original grant declares fifty feet each, then that means a right of way 100.00000' nothing more, nothing less. If you recover monuments at 99.91 you reject them
MightyMoe, post: 414545, member: 700 wrote: There is the "king gets his" theory. If the original grant declares fifty feet each, then that means a right of way 100.00000' nothing more, nothing less. If you recover monuments at 99.91 you reject them
The only place I've found where that applies in when proportioning - the method of last resort.. I've never found any authoritative source that says to reject the intended and relied upon monuments in favor of proportioning.
Yes, I was also taught to give the full ROW no matter what, even if it means rejecting original monuments. BUT, I've never found any legal authority to do so. Has anyone found the legal authority and precedence to uphold the theory?
Around here the common practice and belief is that the ROW monuments along the state highways etc are 'junk' and not correct.
I tend to be more in the belief that they should stand as set in the ground although going against local practice will make me look like the oddball when 3 different surveyors opinions agree against mine....
Some time ago, (maybe it still goes on in some states) Highway boundaries were set by State employees or contractors and licensed surveyors were not part of the process. In our DOT a Licensed Surveyor is required to determine the boundary and must stamp to his plans. The DOT doesn't (or shouldn't) be dictating to a licensed surveyor how to determine the ROW. A licensed land surveyor is licensed to protect the public interests (State Property and the adjoiner's properties), and I think most of us strive to do that.
And who cares if you measure 99.91' between two original monuments that were set 100' apart? I don't think the King even knows about it, (even if he says he does).
